One of the points in John Kerry's plan for Iraq has been to call on America's allies to "share the burden". However, many of the pundits (from O'Reilly to Maher) have pointed out that it's a swell idea, but it may not be so easy to actually do. If with a new, smarter, less-arrogant, U.S. President. After all, why would France and Germany want to enter this ever increasing morass at this time?

It's a good point, but one which Kerry can dispell in one single policy initiative:

"Hire me, and I'll fire Halliburton"

With billions and billions of dollars worth of contracts then free for the competitive bidding, do you suppose France, Germany and all the others might want a taste of that action?

You bet they would. And all they'd need to do to be allowed into that bidding process is a commitment of troops and/or money for the effort. We could use both.

I know that quite a few Dems in high places read this blog from time to time. Perhaps somehow one of you can get this idea to Kerry before Thursday's foreign policy debate with Bush if he hasn't already thought about it.

Both firing Halliburton (and hey, they can still bid competitively if they want to!) and simply demonstrating how Allies could be brought into the effort in a single policy initiative would be enormously popular with the American people. It would also help win both the election, and the war at the same time.

but wouldn't the initial response from Bush be something like: "See - John Kerry wants to move jobs to FRANCE! I'm keeping the jobs here!" Kerry needs a one-line rebuttal for that reaction for it to be effective in the debate.

"Halliburton won contracts throughout the 90s under Clinton's foreign policies."

Is it just me, or does Paul remind anyone else of that carnival game, "Whack-a-mole?" For those who aren't familiar with the game, the object is to whack (using a mallet) one of the many "moles" who periodically take turns popping out of their little holes. Paul just seems to have (again) popped out of his little hole on the far right side of the playing field. Hit to mole, win a prize...

Yes, Paul, Halliburton did indeed win contracts while Clinton was in office. Something tells me that a company that does not generate revenues for an eight-year stretch would have difficulty staying in business. The relevant issue, however, is whether such contracts were truly won under competitive circumstances, or whether they were simply handed to Halliburton in no-bid situations (as has been the case under Dubya/Cheney).

See if you can determine why that might be significant to our would-be allies, and why Brad's point is, as usual, right on the money. When you're ready, feel free to pop out of your little hole...Ready, Play!

Let's deal in reality rather than simplistic comebacks. First, yes Halliburton did recieve no bid contracts for services while Cheney was at the helm and Clinton was president. They were also caught bilking the government at that time and caught hell for it. Does this mean that Clinton was in bed with Halliburton? Not necessarily. What you may not be aware of is that with Bush/Cheney at the helm, the cost of doing business with the government had also declined. In the last two years of the Clinton Administration, Halliburtion paid 1.2 million dollars to lobby various congress members and executive departments. In the first two years of the Bush Administration their costs fell by half. So, we know two things: first the bilking was done while Cheney was CEO and continued after the Bush Administration came to power. More importantly, their cost of doing business in this manner halved and they have had no discernable consequences from their actions.The only constant? Mr. Cheney.

I don't have an issue with no-bids, provided the company receiving them performs to the level such trust engenders.

Halliburton has failed that test. The fact it is close to the only company that can handle these reconstruction jobs has made it fat and lazy, replete with the spending scandals that result from such a situation.

The solution: split the reconstruction jobs and opening the bidding to smaller companies. While that seems counter-intuitive to saving money (forgoing economies of scale, single supply lines and such) it would save money b/c the greater competition would drive down the bids and force a higher level of competence.

The other, more radical solution is to unleash the anti-trust forces against Halliburton. Not my first choice, but without adequate competition to ensure their performance, we all suffer as a result.

Thanks Teddy! I agree with you again, especially on the three points below

? I don't have an issue with no-bids, provided the company receiving them performs to the level such trust engenders.
> it is close to the only company that can handle these reconstruction jobs
> unleash the anti-trust forces against Halliburton. Not my first choice

And from Jeff -
>Paul just seems to have (again) popped out of his little hole on the far right side of the playing field. Hit to mole, win a prize...

Just showing what hypocrites you guys are when I make these kinds of short statements.

If Clinton were president today and Bush was running against him in 2004, would guys guys say Anyone But Clinton? The answer is no because you guys are a bunch of hypocrites!

This nonsense that "only Halliburton" can serve food at Military cafeterias is absurd. I know the French make delicous food, and could likely hand out roast beef very nicely.

The Germans are very organized. The laundry services that Halliburton handles could be handled very smartly by a German firm, I'm guessing.

You love to talk about the Russian, German, French investments in Iraqi oil. Let their companies contribute to the reconstruction of Iraqi oil industry (and reap the profits) the way you have suggested they were doing *before* the Occupation of Iraq.

Your perpetuation of myths (which you are either aware of, or simply passing on because you don't know any better) does not demonstrate "hypocrisy". It demonstrates "ignorance" on your behalf. Something which you have demonstrating enough. We believe you now. You're ignorant.

After reading Paul's response, I feel the need to clarify my statement.

Halliburton is basically the only company that can these bids *as they are currently structured.* The straight-down, all-inclusive nature of the bid eliminates virtually all competition. Even something as simple as cafeteria food is originally received by Halliburton before it's sub-contracted out.

Again, this is normally an efficient way of doing things (such as buliding a house). BUt Halliburton has no other "contractors" competing against them. So you get the laziness and corruption.

Either the bids must be broken up, or some anti-trust procedure must be initiated. Otherwise this situation will never change.